CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:75/2007.

M.Sheik Mohammed Gowthali,

S/o.K.Mohaideen,

5/5, Thirukovaiyar Street,

Vannarpettai,

Tirunelveli. …Complainant.

..vs..

1. The Manager,

State Bank of Travancore,

Samathanapuram Branch,

200G, Tiruchendur Road,

Chandra Complex,

Palayamkottai,

Tirunelveli.



2. The Zonal Officer,

State Bank of Travancore,

Theynampet,

Chennai – 18. … Opposite parties.

This complaint came before us for final hearing on 25-11-2009 in the presence of Thiru G. Muruga Murali Dharan, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru R.E.Ramakrishnan, Advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:

ORDER

This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

1) The averments of the complainant in the complaint are briefly as follows: The complainant used to pledge his jewels with the 1st opposite party and get loan amount and repay it regularly. On 6-5-2006 he pledged his jewels weighing 134.400 gm and obtained a gold loan of Rs.65,000/- with the 1st opposite party. Jewel Loan No. is AGL.109 and his new No is AGL 67011791504. He utilized this amount for the development of his business. However he met with loss in his business and subsequently he closed his business. Because of that complainant could not redeem the jewels in time. Complainant represented this matter to the opposite parties and promised to close his account as quickly as possible. Opposite parties staff went to the house of the complainant when the complainant was not in his house and demanded the loan amount from the woman foke in the house of the complainant and used filthy languages against them. This caused much mental agony to the complainant and so he issued a legal notice to the 1st opposite party on 5-3-2007 which was received by the 1st opposite party on 6-3-2007. On 7-3-2007 1st opposite party sent a reply notice containing false allegations that the jewel pledged by the complainant was low gauge and inferior quality. In the above reply notice the 1st opposite party has demanded the complainant to redeem the jewels within 15 days. The jewels were examined by the appraiser of the opposite parties at the time of pledging them and after satisfying that the jewels are of goods standard the 1st opposite party paid the loan amount to the complainant. Hence the opposite parties cannot now say that the jewels pledged by the complainant are inferior quality and low gauge. After that the complainant met the 1st opposite party and paid the entire loan amount with interest of Rs.73,508/- on 4-7-2007. He requested the 1st opposite party to return the jewels pledged by him since he had already paid the loan amount to which the 1st opposite party replied that since auditing was going on he requested the complainant to come after three days to get the jewels. After three days complainant went to the 1st opposite party and demanded return of the jewels. The 1st opposite party shouted at the complainant and questioned how dare he is to send a legal notice and demanded Rs.10,000/- to return back the jewels in front of the customers and public who were in the opposite party bank at that time. Because of this the complainant was subject to mental agony and so he left the 1st opposite party’s office on that day. He sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 19-7-2007 which was received by the opposite parties on 20-7-2007 and 21-7-2007 respectively but they have not sent any reply so far. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to return the jewels pledged by him with the 1st opposite party and until then to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for his mental agony and cost of this proceedings.

2) The averment in the counter filed by the 1st opposite party as adopted by the 2nd opposite party are as follows: The complainant approached the 1st opposite party for a gold loan of Rs.65,000/- on 9-5-2006 against the security of the gold jewels. He produced one chain and 5 bangles having a combined weight of 134 grams and represented that the gold are high quality and gauge. Believing the representations of the complainant 1st opposite party granted a loan of Rs.65,000/- against pledge of the said jewels. The annual audit of the 1st opposite party was conducted from 6-2-2007 and when the auditors checked the jewellery items pledged by the complainant with the help of the bank’s panel appraiser, found that they were silver ornaments coated with gold but not of pure gold. After that only opposite parties came to know that the complainant had borrowed the gold loan cheating 1st opposite party, with the intention and if the gold were sold they would not fetch even 1/8 value of the market price of the gold prevailing at the time of pledge. Hence the opposite parties demanded the complainant for immediate repayment of the entire dues. In the notice issued by the complainant, complainant had stated that the opposite parties may sell the pledged jewel for recovery of the dues. This shows that the complainant had full knowledge about the low quality of the jewels. This opposite party had filed a criminal complaint on 23-5-2007 before the Commissioner of Police Tirunelveli complaining that the complainant had pledged gold jewels which were not genuine, but only gold-coated silver ornaments and thus cheated the Bank. The complainant filed by this opposite party is still pending before the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli. The complainant had cleared his entire dues on the gold loan dated 4-7-2007 and requested to release the pledged ornaments. Since the opposite party had filed a police complaint against the complainant which is still pending the 1st opposite party informed the complainant that they cannot release the jewels without the prior permission of the police and they may require the production of the gold jewels at any time. They have also advised the complainant to execute a suitable document acceptable to the opposite parties before getting the jewels to which the complainant had refused. The 1st opposite party never directed the complainant to get back the pledged jewels after three days and never shouted at the complainant as “ntspNa Nghlh” All these allegations are invented to exert pressure upon the opposite party to withdraw the criminal complaint lodged against the complainant with the police. Mere discharge of the liability under the gold loan by the complainant will not absolve him from criminal liability for having committed fraud and cheating against the bank. This opposite party is now ready to submit the pledged ornaments before this Forum or to deal with them as ordered in the above circumstances. This Forum is empowered to assess the quality of the jewels pledged by expert. This Forum may be pleased to direct the complainant to get expert opinion on the pledged jewels. In fact the complainant is liable to compensate the opposite party for the fraud committed by him and the inconvenience caused them. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3) The points for consideration are;

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and if so;

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4) Points: The case of the complainant is that he obtained a gold jewel loan of Rs.65,000/- from the 1st opposite party by pledging his jewel weighing 134 grams. Sine he met with loss in his business he could not redeem the pledged jewels within the stipulated time. Since the officials of the 1st opposite party came to the house of the complainant and demanded the loan amount from the woman foke of his house and used filthy words against them and threatened them, the complainant caused to issue a legal notice on the opposite parties. Subsequently on 4-7-2007 the entire loan amount together with interest was paid by the complainant and the complainant demanded the return of the pledged jewels with the 1st opposite party. Till now the opposite parties had not returned the pledged jewels in spite of the fact that the complainant had paid the entire loan amount with interest on 4-7-2007. So the complainant has filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to return the pledged jewels and for compensation. The case of the opposite parties are that the complainant was sanctioned gold loan of Rs.65,000/- on the security of jewels weighing 134 grams and during Annual Audit of the 1st opposite party the jewels pledged by the complainant were checked with the help of the banks Panel appraiser and the auditors found that the jewels pledged were silver ornaments coated with gold and not pure gold. Hence after payment of the entire loan amount when the complainant demanded return of the pledged jewels he was informed by the 1st opposite party since apolice complaint is pending on him regarding the pledging of gold coated jewels and cheating, the pledged jewels could not be returned to him since police may need it at any time. The opposite parties have stated that after the payment of the entire loan amount the pledged jewels could not be returned to the complainant because of the above reasons, which will not amount to deficiency of service on their part.

5) To prove the case of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. Ex.A1 is the gold loan card of the complainant and Ex.A2 is the legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party and Ex.A3 is the acknowledgement card for that. Ex.A4 is the reply notice given by the 1st opposite party and Ex.A5 is the receipt for the payment of the entire loan amount by the complainant and Ex.A6 is the legal notice issued by the complainant. Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 are the acknowledgement cards and Ex.A9 is the general power of authority given by the complainant to one Sivamani, who has filed proof affidavit on behalf of the complainant in this case.

6) On the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit of the 1st opposite party was filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked. Ex.B1 is the legal notice issued by the complainant and Ex.B2 is the reply notice given by the opposite parties and Ex.B3 is the copy of complaint given by the 1st opposite party before the Commissioner of Police. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant had paid the entire amount towards gold loan together with interest on 4-7-2007. When the complainant demanded to return back of the pledged jewels the opposite parties were not in a position to return the jewels because a criminal complaint was lodged and pending against the complainant for pledging silver ornaments coated with gold with an intention to cheat the opposite parties. Ex.B3 is the copy of the complaint given by the 1st opposite party against the complainant. But on perusal of Ex.B3 it seems that it is only a reminder to the previous complaint dated 22-5-2007, the original complaint dated 23-5-2007 was not filed by the opposite parties before this Forum. It is seen from Ex.B3 that the complaint against the complainant was made by the 1st opposite party as well as in May 2005. It is not known whether any F.I.R has been registered against the complainant or any action has been taken by the Police in this regard. The opposite parties have also not stated anything regarding the stage at which the complaint now stands. The complainant had paid the entire loan amount together with interest on 4-7-2007 itself. Now more than two years have lapsed and no action has been taken against the complainant given by the 1st opposite party. How long the opposite parties would keep the jewels of the complainant after repayment of the entire loan amount is not stated. Even though, substantiate reasons have been stated for the non delivery of the pledged jewels after repayment of the entire amount, it is not known how long the opposite party can keep the pledged jewels with them after the entire loan amount is paid. No tangible proof has been filed before this Forum to show that based on the complaint given by the 1st opposite party against the complainant any action has been taken by the Police so far. Not even a FIR had been registered on the complaint given by the 1st opposite party during 2007 so far. Hence the arguments of the opposite parties that they could not return the pledged jewels on the ground that Police complaint is pending against the complainant and they may require the pledged jewels at any time for check up does not seem to hold good.

7) In the circumstances stated above we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to the relief as asked for. Hence we decide this points accordingly.

8) In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to hand over the pledged jewels of the complainant for AGL 109 new No.AGL 67011791504 and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.2000/- towards costs within two months from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Dictated to the Steno-typist, taken and typed by him and corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 7th day of December 2009.